Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#481

Post by manigandham » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #470

manigandham wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost? Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how…

what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost? There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin America... And then there'…

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate power and capabilities from its application.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#482

Post by oldcynic » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

engi_nerd wrote: post #473

oldcynic wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it the case that the only nation getting an F35 comparable to the US version is the UK? It's unclear if even that version is the same. Everyone else seems to be getting some sort of F35 lite export version, including Australia, Italy and possibly others. Is that trusting one's friends or are they too unstable to trust?

There is no such thing as an "export version" of the F-35. All F-35s have the same installed mission systems, the same avionics, and the same mission performance. This was one of the big goals of the program -- to give the US, allies, and other friendly nations a common, capable, 5th generation strike aircraft.

That's funny, I've read the claim multiple times in the media amongst the controversy over its procurement. Not least because it took years for the US:UK dispute over technology transfer to resolve during the Bush+Blair years.

Even since resolution there's unprecedented restrictions of maintenance in RAF service, requiring some major components returned to BAe in the US when BAe are a British based company.

I'm on my way out but a quick search seems to show Israel as having the least restricted version, which is a surprise: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-...

Some discussion of the Blair era issues: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-warns-usa-over-itar-...

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#483

Post by manigandham » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

pofilat wrote: post #357

rayiner wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's recent economic development is the result of unprecedented levels of trade in an unprecedentedly peaceful world. That peace, in turn, is the direct result of U.S. efforts to maintain international stability, through the use or threat of military force.

China is far more stable than the US.

Under what metric exactly?

They now have a lifetime emperor who is enacting surveillance and citizen "ratings" that make dystopian novels look tame, along with crippling polution, poor living and safety standards, intense competition without any consumer or IP protection, lack of political freedom, and slowing economic growth that needs to absorb the momentum of a billion people lifted out of poverty and expecting the good times to continue without a revolt.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#484

Post by manigandham » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

FearOfReprisal wrote: post #205

manigandham wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The might of the US military is still beyond any other nation, even though that advantage is being threatened recently. ISIS was very much defeated, and it was actually the lack of military followthrough that let it grow back, although it is still severely diminished. The citizens of those countries that were ravaged are incredibly thankful for US military assistance, and I advise you actually talk to some of them if…

The US military is mighty, but not terribly effective. I mean, we're 17 years into the second gulf war. 17 years and we still can't pull-out because we screwed up the first one so royally. I'm writing this from a refugee community center here in Istanbul, the Ad'Dar Center, where I volunteer a couple of hours every day helping helping kids with their lessons, especially in English and Math, cooking, making music, tal…

Your comment history seems to show a made-up version of events where you also claim the US did nothing in WW2. I'm not sure what narrative you're trying to push but your personal history seems suspect on this basis, and the anonymous username doesn't help.

You're also conflating foreign policy with military strength. They are not the same and I'm talking about the latter. How that power is used and whether it's always the best idea can definitely be argued, but the fact that the power is necessary and that having it keeps the peace is most definitely not debatable.

When it comes down to it, there is no other military power willing and able to defend its own and others to such an extent, and that alone set it apart. Trying to weaken that stature will only result in greater harm for both US and foreign citizens.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#485

Post by manigandham » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:44 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #415

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

"Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me" Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.

Please stop and try to talk to some active military personnel before you just pass judgement like this. War is messy. This isn't a video game. The US military goes to extreme lengths in order to avoid collateral damage, including the blood of our own soldiers to protect as many innocents as possible. It's unfortunate that civilians will die but saying the military doesn't care is so beyond the pale that it just sounds like pure hysteria.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#486

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:02 PM UTC

sremani wrote: post #479

snowwrestler wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're acting like shipping never worked before 1950. Many thanks to the U.S. Navy for what they do today, but they did not invent the concept of safe passage. Shipping containers have made an impact in the efficiency of shipping, not the existence of shipping.

The Shipping Container comment was a response to the other poster. I understand safe passage.. Safe Passage does not mean that Fifth fleet sits in the Persian Gulf round the fucking clock! I will not engage in word play, I am not good at it, and it comes from an agenda of being cute or clever.

The Fifth Fleet did not take up residence in the Persian Gulf until 1995. The Suez Canal had been passing traffic for 120 years by then.

You are exaggerating the degree to which international shipping depends on the US Navy.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#487

Post by pcwalton » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #261

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana , we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject pov…

> Under the Pax Americana, we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject poverty in human history. The stable, liberal world order that has been beneficial to so many people has been bankrolled by the U.S. and backed by the U.S. military.

It's perfectly coherent to support the overall ends (relative world peace) and oppose the means (extrajudicial drone strikes, invasion of Iraq, etc.)

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#488

Post by pcwalton » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #441

woodruffw wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency f…

> This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. You’re begging the question. If a particular means consistently yields good results, is it bad means? When the Roman Empire fell, we call the subsequent period the dark ages. What does that say…

At the risk of sort of invoking Godwin, I'm curious if you'd apply the same logic to Stalin and the fall of Nazi Germany. What does the victory in the Battle of Berlin say about whether Stalin was good or bad?

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#489

Post by s2g » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:37 PM UTC

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #402

sdenton4 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist t…

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

or they will better identify a target and choose to bomb the civilians anyway because they can get away with it.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#490

Post by s2g » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #485

s73v3r_ wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me" Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.

Please stop and try to talk to some active military personnel before you just pass judgement like this. War is messy. This isn't a video game. The US military goes to extreme lengths in order to avoid collateral damage, including the blood of our own soldiers to protect as many innocents as possible. It's unfortunate that civilians will die but saying the military doesn't care is so beyond the pale that it just sound…

> War is messy. This isn't a video game

Pretty much is when the biggest risk to one side is from sitting on their butts remote piloting drones.